Just sharing some intuitions on this further, no need to reply.
Given that donors potentially are accounting for short AI timelines, should the money not focus on things like regulatory approvals, building consumer acceptance, and better facilities? As money spent there now will buy time, while the science part will be solved simply by the AI progress and TAI. Especially since you're pointing out to an example, where the main constraint is capital and market access rather than solving unknowns? My intuition also is that a well-designed market test would be something people want to see. Where I would put my effort in terms of pitching this, if I were GFI, is probably a short list of specific bets, their cost estimates, milestones, and kill criteria + making the case for the things AI can't speed up and that you work on already. Or, if you really want to speed up tractable things now, what are the very specific things: cell lines, media optimization, fat alternatives, what exactly needs to be done there that AI labs could help with, and why now vs. waiting for TAI to solve it in 5 -10 years.
 

If I understand this properly from your summary, Vasco (sorry, no time to read the long article), Tomasik lands in something like subjectivism/expressivism? I think naturalism might be a better way out, and it fits physicalist monism well. In naturalism, factory farming/ slavery are bad because of the pain itself, as a natural state in the world, not because of our feelings about it. It's bad regardless of whether anyone cares about it. Obviously, naturalism does not explain why we should care; that's why, e.g., Singer moved towards the "point of view of the universe," with impartiality as an objective truth. I wonder if, by understanding it as a constitutive norm of reasoning itself, we could somehow stay naturalists without the objections that subjectivism faces. I do think most of us think that the suffering is bad for the subject and not because we perceive it as bad, but that's obviously not tackling the part about "what is it that binds us". I feel like morality has an almost Kantian feeling of authority, and I'm unsure we can capture it without stepping outside this monism trip, which might be why Singer is where he is.

Subjectivism is the easiest way out, but it will quickly leave us empty-handed in ethics; we won't be able to defend anything, as there can never be a mistake. But yeah, either we will remain skeptical forever or pick something up. Personally, my brain pushes me into moral uncertainty/philosophical skepticism, but I know a lot of us, understandably, need to anchor in something, sometimes something greater than ourselves, or, in the case above, in part of ourselves :) Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. 

I fixed the number in the comment above, yes, 3.6 to 29. 

Updating on one comment from Siobhan or me does not seem like a good idea :) Give it a go; I think a lot of EAs are just already on the side of your argument here; that's why I thought maybe it's not so much needed for us, as we're already convinced. But publishing your thoughts is always good, and if someone isn't interested, then they'll just skip it. 
The framing might be new, but the problem is old, and you've talked about it for years just in various different framings. At least that's how it sounds to me. But you should not update about posting because 2 people don't find the thoughts original. I think your thoughts on this are needed, and I expressed this above. 

Thanks for this it’s a really useful point and one we’ve been thinking about too. You’re right that the value of cross-cause prioritization research depends a lot on who’s actually listening and what they’re open to. The way we see it, there are at least three types of donors this work is relevant to.

The first are donors who are genuinely cause-neutral and are actively looking for guidance on how to split their resources. Some have asked us for exactly this kind of analysis, both in the past and in the current wave of new philanthropy, so this work is directly for them.

The second are donors who are broadly cause-neutral but, in practice, hedge by putting some money into one cause as a kind of safety net (GHD is a common choice), or who defer to advice that isn’t explicitly modeled. We think an explicit model can help these donors do what they already want to do: diversify their portfolio but in a more principled way. We’re hoping to address their concerns more directly in future posts in the series.

The third group is donors who mostly default to giving later, or to giving within a single cause. Even here, we think the work has something to offer. Many donors with a clear worldview still aren’t completely certain of it, and it’s worth asking what they should do as a hedge against being wrong. Relatedly, some donors who appear to hold a particular worldview may actually be people who think the arguments come down squarely in favor of giving, as though that worldview were true. For them, it can be useful to see an alternative way of allocating resources and what it would recommend. We probably won’t change many minds in this group, but we plan to engage with some of the assumptions behind these positions in later posts.

We’re already in contact with some donors in each of these groups, and we’d love more opportunities to engage with others. Part of our hope for this series is simply that it helps the work get noticed by the people who might find it useful. Thanks again for raising this.

Oh, so you think this is just not adding new perspective to some recent articles? I might have not being following the discussion so closely. So maybe you're right in this context. 

Thanks for this post. I don't want to be annoying, so feel free to ignore this if it would take too much of your time to answer, but I'm curious whether anyone has modeled the end-to-end cost of testing this theory of change end-to-end.
For example:
a) Accelerating the remaining R&D needed for scalable solutions
b) Developing a product that's genuinely competitive on taste
c) Securing a mass-market deal in one country, e.g., getting the product into a major supermarket chain at price parity with meat (with funders subsidizing the difference to test the hypothesis), plus the marketing to support it

Put differently: if a funder asked you or someone in the space, "What would it take to test this ToC, and how would you design the test?", what would we tell them?

Part of why I ask is that from the outside, this space can be hard to navigate. Many companies are raising money, and each makes a plausible case for what it could do with more funding. I understand GFI's model is to support the ecosystem broadly rather than back specific companies, but I wonder whether there's a role for identifying the 1–3 most promising bets closest to a real market test, mapping out their pathways and costs, and helping match them with funding. Or perhaps that's already part of what you do?

It has been made and yet some activists are not even inclusive of fellow advocates, who work on animal welfare :) I think EA Forum obviously has a different community, and maybe there's no need to repost here, given the topic :) But I like that Tobias is using his platforms to make this point 100-time-again, because it ties into the recent conversations that were happening on Substack.  
Singer keeps on repeating his argument about a child in a pond for 40+ years :) 

Hi Toby, the CCF is not eligible for UK gift aid, I'm afraid, as it's a US-held fund, so donations are tax-deductible in the US only.
We're actively looking into workarounds. Theoretically, one can give to a giving vehicle eligible for UK gift aid, and that entity could then re-grant to this fund. Anyone interested can contact us at [email protected] to discuss options.

Thank you, Sarah!